Ranking/Seed System for future ladles

[owned]

I think a good start for the rules would be this:
1. Teams need to have the same name as the last ladle to get the seed (with an exception, you are allowed to add or take away a letter or number from ladle to ladle so ct to cta would work, tx1 to tx would work, etc.)
2. Teams need to have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team to get the seed.
3. If 2+ teams have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team, then the team with more players gets the seed.
4. Teams are allowed to forfeit a seed if they so choose.

These rules are far from perfect, so feel free to take them apart if you want.

1. Why not say it has to be 100% identical? That'd avoid many discussions I'm sure. Bigger clans that vary between having 1 and 2 teams from ladle to ladle can just name their first team "Clan team" instead of "Clan team A", and the occasional other team "Clan team B".
2. I'd say 1 player is enough.
3. No, the one with the identical name gets the seed.
4. Sure, by changing name.

Guys, this isn't as complicated as you make it out to be.

By rule number three, I meant the team with more of the players from the original team gets the seed. But your idea is pretty simple and interesting (I'm assuming your rules are that you need the same name and at least one player from the old team.)

[noob_saibot]

ok woned, i'll to build on that.

- if a team chooses to give up their seed, they must post publicly on the forums at least a day in advance of bracket creation
- if a team gives up their seed, all other seeded teams are moved up a seed and the ladle continues with only 3 seeded teams
-if the ladle encompasses more or less than 16 teams, the brackets are adjusted as follows:

less: the highest seed gets a bye, this gives them an advantage and helps worse teams from being overwhelmed the first round. if only 14 teams, the second seed gets a bye too and so on...

more: seeded teams are immune from having to be in a play in game.

this is a bit more complicated

also the play in game(s) get added into each section (there are 4) into the 4 seeds section, then 3 then 2 then 1. if there are over 20 teams, then repeat and add another play in to then 4,3,2,1 (as there are 2 opening games in each seed's 'section')

If a seed leaves, a random team will vacate the empty slot. Especially if it is only temporarily. Unless the team no longer exists, they are eliminated from the ranking system.



I think the "ranking" system should be based on yearly statistics. A registered team can accumulate a certain amount of points, based on how far they progress in a given ladle. For i.e., if a team reaches the quarterfinals in Ladle #1 they get 8 points. If they lose in the first round of Ladle #2 they get 1 point (playing a ladle merits some point(s) as a new team shouldn't be equal to a team that has been in existence). Therefore from 2 ladle participations, this team has accumulated 9 points total and are ranked #X out of N.

Then based on the number of team entries, the number of seeds can be adjusted. Of course, based on the ranking system. This may resemble the AFL in some ways, but I think a ranking system is a great thing. It would DEFINITELY give teams more incentive to play in ladles.


***The TEAM is ranked, not the individuals, so if a roster changes, as long as that team exists, they keep their ranking/seed. Doesn't matter if players vary month to month, imo. That stuff will be sorted by the actual ladle results.

[Titanoboa]

What's with all these crazy ranking system suggestions?

For one, it'll make it harder for new teams to fight their way into the system (yearly rankings? wtf, yeah sure that'll motivate noob teams).

If we take the rankings from the previous ladle alone, that'll make not only keep the seedings up to date, but also make it possible for a noob team to become seeded if only for one ladle. Then they'll have to fight to remain seeded. Competition is good.

Or if you'd rather want a league (which will naturally give you yearly statistics), stop shooting all the league ideas/suggestions down.

[sinewav]

Ok, I really haven't been following this topic so excuse my ignorance. But from what I've seen so far, the PsYkO Seed System is the easiest way the get the benefits of a seeded tournament without all the unnecessarily long and involved processes that bring us closer to a league format no one wants. It's simple, and we can implement it right away; which is what we want when trying out a new system. It can get more complicated later (usually does).

... I think that we should get 4 seeds from the previous ladle ... the 3rd seed would be the team that lost to the 1st place team while the 4th seed would be the team that lost to the 2nd place team.

Yes, this is brilliant. Again, no crazy rankings and complicated doings. It also gives a new team that worked hard to get into the finals a REWARD. Can you imagine getting to the finals and NOT getting a bye the following month because there were still 4 teams ranked ahead of you? No thanks.

Seeding has always been voted down. However, I think a simple, effective system can compete with the popularity of randomization. I always support randomization, but this is pretty darn close to getting me to change my vote.

[Lucifer]

How about a minimum player count for the seeded teams? Like, to get the seed in the next Ladle, they need at least 4 players from the team that earned the seed, regardless of name?

That way, if a team captain goes nuts and kicks everyone off his team, they can reform under a new name and claim the seed and the team captain gets screwed. Gives him some extra accountability.

If the team has 8, and they reform into two teams, then there's no obvious way to handle it without adding extra complexity, because creating a new seed to accommodate intra-team drama is dumb.

[apparition]

EDITED
4 Seed System, continued

Seeding method described above. Regulations described in this post.

Automatically seed 4 teams, however keeping the team consistent needs to be regulated (as people are suggesting). Maybe the top 4 teams from the Ladle should make a decision whether they wish to be seeded or not soon after the Ladle ends? This gives them the ability to take advantage of the seed by keeping mostly the same members (described below) or allowing them the flexibility of playing with a different team without causing a huge problem with players switching to a seeded team. If they don't want to or don't plan to keep the same members, they forfeit the seed. If they make too many changes, they forfeit the seed as well. This could be determined by a Team Leader vote due on the Thursday before the Ladle and then once again 15-30 minutes before the Ladle to make sure nothing has changed

So, if a team requests to be seeded then the team captain(s) should be the same and there needs to be a minimum number of common players from the last Lade equal to 4 (including the captain). Reason: 6 players on the grid, so 4 is a pseudo team majority. This will help if the seeded team splits into two teams. Especially when teams have been signing up with 8+ players. Maybe even have the minimum number of common players be 6 would be good?

[PsYkO]

*Keanu reaves* whooooaaa

this stuff is getting complicated. I don't think there is a need for by laws for every exception or possible scenario. I hate lawyers. Keep it simple and the team leaders can vote when need be before the ladle.

[Hoax]

There's a lot of discussion on how to seed but the argument for it has been pretty weak

[-*inS*-]

There's a lot of discussion on how to seed but the argument for it has been pretty weak

My main thought is that if the ladle expands (to 20-24 teams), seeding would have a few benefits:

It's more likely that no team would end up playing more than 4 rounds (since the seeded teams would be first to get byes), also the weaker teams are more likely to get an opponent of their level seeing as they don't have to face the seeded teams the opening round.

Right now, the random system works, but I don't think it will be an effective if we move past 16 team/4 round ladles.

[sinewav]

There's a lot of discussion on how to seed but the argument for it has been pretty weak

Yeah, but a really good system kind of sells itself, right? It's good the "seeding crowd" is working out the details. We've never been this close to having a good system yet (I don't think).

[noob_saibot]

What's with all these crazy ranking system suggestions?

For one, it'll make it harder for new teams to fight their way into the system (yearly rankings? wtf, yeah sure that'll motivate noob teams).

If we take the rankings from the previous ladle alone, that'll make not only keep the seedings up to date, but also make it possible for a noob team to become seeded if only for one ladle. Then they'll have to fight to remain seeded. Competition is good.

Or if you'd rather want a league (which will naturally give you yearly statistics), stop shooting all the league ideas/suggestions down.

Ranking I guess would be excessive, but it would be strictly to determine the seeds lol. I guess that is a bit overboard, and the seedings can be implemented much simpler and faster.

I guess, for simplicity sake, having the seeds based solely on the previous ladle is a good idea for now at least, just to get this up and running. But I visualize a more stable and honest system for the long run, not just "oh you won last ladle you're #1 seed."

[PsYkO]

There's a lot of discussion on how to seed but the argument for it has been pretty weak

Ya never know till you try it! (this goes for both sides of the argument)

[Hoax]

Nice point ins
The main advantage of seeding I see is that the later stages will be more of a spectacle. What happened to streaming some of the matches? (You know, with the scouse guy) It almost seemed like the final between unk and jos killed the momentum. I presume everyone thought it would be one sided and not worth viewing? (no offense to unk) If we have seeding the best 2 teams will always end up in the final


As for teams that change rostas, I think Luci/woned/z-man picked a right number with 4. Although 3 could be considered. A good example would be the last 3 ladle winning team/teams. free kill is the only one to feature every time and including him, each time the team has had 3 repeat appreances from the previous ladle. So under a system where you need to keep 4 players, jos and binary wouldn't have been seeded. That also makes spteamshufflegate seem silly since on these terms inglourious basterds wouldn't be classed as the same team.
BUT would clans be exempt from this rule? If so what's to stop Plus+, for example, from saying that they're now a clan to get passed this Therefore in order to keep a seeding this rule should apply to all teams on the board.

Inglourious Basterds

Code: Select all

 free kill     ------     ------     -------------     1200     Luzifer     Olive    ------     Titanoboa     wap     --------

Team binary

Code: Select all

free kill     newbie     madmax     Lackadaisical     1200     Luzifer     ----     ------     ---------     ---     --------

Jalapeños on sticks!

Code: Select all

free kill     newbie     ------     Lackadaisical     ----     -------     Olive    freako     ---------     ---     MaZuffeR

*I hope the challenge board is correct x_x

2. Teams need to have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team to get the seed.

2. I'd say 1 player is enough.

In this case, providing free kill plays next ladle, his team will be no.1 seed. However what if he doesn't turn up for some reason (knowingly or unexpected), should the 6 that do play really be seeded first? This is too flexible imo. BUT even if it is set at 4, what if one of those 4 doesn't play (again knowingly a few days beforehand or unexpected on the day) and they use a sub thus only having 3 from the last ladle...This seems like a minor issue but if the teams are judged on consistent members what's the point if it's not covered.

Perhaps it should just be

3. No, the one with the identical name gets the seed.

Regardless of who plays

[syllabear]

Perhaps identical name (within reason, i.e. CT-A and CT-B), and the same team captain since this is supposed to be the most important player.

[Magic]

I think most of us could generally agree on the top 4 teams at any given ladle does it really have to come down to a formula